The Instigator
Con (against)
7 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
7 Points

Death penalty

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: Select Winner
Started: 5/30/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 884 times Debate No: 54910
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)




Con: Death penalty should only be applied for rapists and killers who confess raping/killing person who did them no wrong.
Pro will use round 1 only to state his position.
BoP is shared.

Voting rule: Judges will not take into account who used more reliable sources.


Death penalty should be used on absolutely any prisoner that confesses to their crime, once in prison.

However the original sentence must never be death penalty.

Death penalty can only be given to someone who is confessing that is above the age of majority.

If they confess before the prison sentence, their confession is not death-penalty worthy.

This can even be given for someone confessing to stealing a lollipop.

The death penalty, itself, shall differ per crime.

Brutal murders of first degree or serial killers that made the deaths fast: Ramming a burning hot rod up their lubricated a**hole to burn their insides and let he stomach acid burn them to death.

Serial killers, war crime convicts, slow and painful murderers who had prior intent and planned to make the victim suffer a lot, rapists who used cutting or permanently damages the victim's genitalia:

For men or MTF trannies: Prior the this process, it is important to involuntarily tickle the prisoner, while in handcuffs until they scream with laughter. It is important that they are screaming with it. this must be recorded on a computer that can play the sound on loop. Once this is in,peel the penis with a carrot/potato peeler with penis being wanked to erection and a cock ring being placed on it beforehand to ensure it stays that way during the entire process. Then pour liquid nitrogen to freeze their peeled penises. If they are circumcised then they got off slightly lucky, good for them. Now what you do is you get a nutcracker and must slowly but surely crush each testicle with great precision. Once once testicle is done, you must play the sound of their own laughter back to them, over and over on a loop. Headphones can help you block it out. Feel free to increase the volume to uncontrollable levels if you want to be kind to them and take their mind off of the pain down there.

2k character limit is preventing me from further detail. In R2, I'll go into further detail why my system is superior to Con's.
Debate Round No. 1


1) If death penalty was delivered on absolutely every prisoner that confesses a crime:
A) Many people would unnecessarily be executed.
B) Many people who are guilty of smaller crimes would lie.

*) Since my opponent said people who confess crime before sentence should not be executed, I will assume he wants people who are proven guilty of crimes he listed bellow "shall differ per crime".

2) Purpose of punishment is to prevent people from doing the crime again. Torturing is not necessary, and is evil.

3) If people were executed without confessing crime, many innocent people would be executed.

4) If people accused of severe crime they did not confess are sentenced with jail only, in the case they are proven not guilty later, it is possible to release them. Once they are executed, nothing can be done for them.

5) Delivering as mush death penalties as my opponent suggests would:
A) increase disdain towards government,
B) make society less productive, since people are not attending their jobs for a time when member of their family dies
C) make society have less adults in proportion of adults and children. Therefore there would be more children without
parents, and children would have less people to guide them well.

I am asking judges to punish my opponent's profanity, cause profanity is not allowed on DDO.


Due to the 2k restriction, I'll leave out the rest of the details for now. Just so you know, it would gradually get as merciful as lethal injection and electric chair. Guns would be out of the question; too kind.

I shall explain the four priorities of sentencing and highlight how each is met better in my system than Con's:

1) Retribution - Punishment of offender

My system incorporates the prison system and all punishments go accordingly. However, some may not want to go through with their sentence and are free to confess to be killed. It saves the taxpayer's money (since prisons can be gradually shrunk with less living bodies being held in it, and the pain the person receives in the death is scaled to their crime. Con never explains why rape and murder deserve death while other crimes do not.

2) Deterrence - The Reduction of Crime

Prison, community service and anklets are all still present in my system. On the other hand, in Con's system, many suicidal individuals would carry out rape and/or murder for the sake of the death penalty (if they don't have the courage to commit suicide but want to die). In my system such individuals would probably only bother stealing, especially since the death method for that is more merciful than greater crimes.

3) Rehabilitation - Reforming offenders

My system only allows prisoners to confess for death penalty, it does not allow those in asylum or rehab clinics to do so.

4) Protection of public - safety

Our systems equally ensure safety form murderers and rapists but mine offers further permanence in protecting the public from other types of criminals (who prison life itself may suddenly turn to suicide).

Our systems seem to equally do this except for one thing: Mine is more likely to tempt non-suicidal rapists and murderers to turn themselves in for a lesser sentence. Con's system immediately kills, discouraging confessions prior to prison.

My system, meets more aims of sentencing than Con's does.
Debate Round No. 2


R1) In my system people can do suicide as well, whenever they want. But people who did a smaller crime, but don't want to die should have ability to confess, and save "everyone's" time. In my system, time convict spends in prison is scaled to their crime.
I consider rape and murder of innocent to be worst of all crimes, and the only ones that are deserving more then prison sentence.

R2) Number of suicidal individuals who are brave enough to kill another person and rape, but not brave enough to kill themselves is completely negligible, if any.

My opponent was not clear in 3). I will ask him to try to explain what he meant.

R4) is same as R2)

Since my system meets all 4 aims of sentencing that Pro listed, I will ask him to name the one he considers not to be met in my system and why.


Throughout this debate, Con has consistently stated that his system is morally correct because it gives automatic death penalty to any self-confessed killers/rapists.

Here are the fundamental issues with his system, as opposed to mine.

On retribution, his system doesn't even incorporate a different punishment for more brutal murderers or rapists, it simply has a one-for-all solution. My system is ultimately not only tempts criminals to confess (for a reduced prison sentence) but punishing to the scale of the crime (as I explain in round one very explicitly with the top ends of crimes whereas Con would punish a serial killer and crime of passion the same way.

On deterrence, my opponent's system again has the problem of not deterring a killer from becoming a serial killer or rapist form raping more brutally or repeatedly. With my opponent's system people who have once done a heinous crime will keep committing it because they're a "dead man walking" regardless of what they do. My system not only makes the death of serial offenders and brutal offenders far more agonizing than those who offend less brutally and often but also has prison as a non-killing middleman between the outside world and kill-zone. This also deters people from bothering to blackmail people to confess if they know that person can later retract their statement once they live long enough to work out how protection works.

Both our systems encourage rehabilitation, my point was to establish that my system foes people to live all the way through rehabilitation and offers them no easy way out via death.

As for protecting the public, my system encourages people to confess without any risk of losing their life, it also gives an incentive for them to confess before imprisonment. My opponent's system encourages criminals to fight their trial to the bitter end with no hope of lesser sentence, putting the public at a greater risk.

In conclusion, my system is the superior one of death penalty.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 7 years ago
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: *sigh* Well, this was painful to read through, but Pro is the only one who took the time to explain his arguments and provide warrants. Much as I think the route he took warrants some sort of conduct violation, this is a single vote, so I assess everything taken together, and conduct alone is not enough to sway my vote. I find Pro's argument repulsive on a number of levels, and I think his warrants for implementing such a system are weak, but they're the only ones I have. Con cannot just reply with brief statements that only observe the statements on a very superficial level, and he cannot hope to counter them just by making claim statements followed by impacts with no warrants or proof for either. Thus, my vote goes Pro.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 7 years ago
Who won the debate:--
Reasons for voting decision: I became physically ill reading just one round from pro, so NULL VOTE (if I am not going to read the debate, I cannot cast points for either side). Advice for each debater... CON: "I am asking judges to punish my opponent's profanity, cause profanity is not allowed on DDO." 1. When asking judges to take action, please use spell check. 2. As the instigator, you have specifically set this to WTA standard, meaning you are requesting people vote solely by conduct; which is dangerously non-confident in the strength of your arguments. PRO: All you had to do was show merit to the death penalty, or even shoot holes in the logic of the confession requirement; example, famous rapist R. Kelly filmed himself raping an underage girl, yet claimed innocence... Instead, you came up with an elaborate system of revenge without regard for justice.
Vote Placed by PotBelliedGeek 7 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: I am giving this win to Con, not for particularly good arguments, but for lack of terribly bad ones. Pro presented some of the worst arguments I have ever seen. While I am well aware that he was trolling this debate, Con still made better sense, and his logic at least linear, if nothing else.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.